Timely Article About Gun Rights

“Tactically, they’ve been brilliant on a lot of issues,” agreed Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence..."

Sweet...

Rand, the spokeswoman for the Violence Policy Center, acknowledged that “we don’t have centralized data-gathering to know what people are doing with these licenses.”

“(But) anecdotally, we know they’re doing quite a bit of harm,” she said.

We don't know, but we know. Maybe it's that kind of psychospeak that's caused the anti-gun movement to largely collapse in the United States over the past 20 years.

I'm rather disappointed that they didn't give anyone from the gun rights side a chance to counter VPC's bogus "Armed Carry Killers" statistics. NRA did a very nice take up on them a couple of days ago.
 
Reports filed by officers who arrived at the scene a short time later called it an “exceptionally clear” case of justifiable homicide. Following South Carolina’s “Castle Doctrine,” which allows the use of deadly force in self-defense, police did not arrest Corley. They did not interrogate him. Corley was offered the opportunity to make a voluntary statement, which he did.

Helms’ friends and relatives were left to mourn, barred by the same Castle Doctrine from filing a civil lawsuit.
Click to expand...

The way they write it you'd think we're supposed to feel bad about that last part. :rolleyes:
 
They did get the DIG in:

Following South Carolina’s “Castle Doctrine,” which allows the use of deadly force in self-defense, police did not arrest Corley. They did not interrogate him. Corley was offered the opportunity to make a voluntary statement, which he did.

Helms’ friends and relatives were left to mourn, barred by the same Castle Doctrine from filing a civil lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Poor Bad guy.

I was impressed by the poll that came with the artical.
 
Helms’ friends and relatives were left to mourn, barred by the same Castle Doctrine from filing a civil lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Cause you know, the poor guy committing an armed felony on productive members of society should get our sympathy....
 
I also had to laugh at this part...

Her group posts news accounts of concealed-weapons permit holders allegedly involved in firearms deaths on a part of its Web site called “Concealed Carry Killers.” The site says 130 civilians and nine police officers have been killed and 13 mass shootings have been carried out by people with concealed-weapons permits since May 2007. Helmke, of the Brady Campaign, cited the work of Rand’s group in a recent blog post that mocked the NRA for saying concealed weapons permit holders “are all ‘law-abiding’ citizens.’”
Click to expand...

Since I just had a conversaton a little while ago regarding this exact same thing

Another conversation with an anti

To sum up
Me: "So you realize that there are something like 3.5 MILLION permit holders out there so you are talking about approximately .003% of CCW holders have killed or injured someone.

(I start laughing)

Me: "Wow, as a group that makes us safer than bathtubs and kitchen stoves!" "Heck I'm not sure but I think that makes us safer than stairs!"
Click to expand...
 
So, I posted in the wrong open window, my post was actually meant for another thread. Sorry.

My stance on this topic is thus: I feel bad that the family has to mourn the loss of one of their kin. I do not feel bad that the criminal was justifiably killed in the course of a committing a crime. But, my heart goes out to his family. There's a different between the family and the victim.
 
Last edited:
Helms’ friends and relatives were left to mourn, barred by the same Castle Doctrine from filing a civil lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Damn straight. If you pull a gun on someone and are willing to take a life, you and your family should be ready to pay the price.

A criminal or his family should have no legal rights to sue someone who refused to be a victim.
 
Kreyzhorse said:
Damn straight. If you pull a gun on someone and are willing to take a life, you and your family should be ready to pay the price.
Click to expand...

I completely and totally disagree. Unless the family aided and abetted the criminal, such as in the Lakewood cop shootings, the family should not have to pay the price for the criminal's actions. They are forced to pay by the acts of the criminal family member, but the family, if they had no hand in the criminal's actions, are victims just like the victim of the crime.

In no way should you read anything in my statement that would imply that I feel the family should be compensated or should be allowed to sue the victim of the crime, because I do not feel that way at all.
 
I am astonished that a news organization with the historical anti-gun bias displayed by MSNBC would print that article.

Rand comes across as ideologically militant and not quite lucid:

"“The idea that you send people out into public and if someone else has a gun, you have to kill them, that becomes anarchy,” she said."

Excuse me?

U.S. laws may vary from state to state, and they may certainly be accused of being inconsistently applied, but to describe the current social status in the United States as "anarchy" suggests that Rand is profoundly confused.

May she remain that way for years to come - she comes across as someone who is out of touch with reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top